No it is bad - because I know that there is no soul in the brush strokes and composition - it is a hollow imitation of an algorithm collecting interactions between imaginary spaces.
Hot take: Abstract art always swung between art and masturbation and it's kind of funny that a neural net produces more consistently interesting outcomes than many abstract artists.
Yeah, I understand that, but it's a physiological reaction to it - I can start in a section and then be brought out to the whole, and it's terrifying - I can't imagine that pondering those images is healthy.
That's kind of what I like about it. Whatever you see isn't necessarily what's there, it's your brain grasping to interpret the imagines. It's spicy cognition.
I'd argue that your brain is doing what it always does with visual stimuli - Trying to find a recognizable pattern in a field of arbitary input. But in this case the image your brain is trying to find patterns in has, at most, highly distorted partial pieces of recognizable objects, so your brain has to try to tease out meaning from that distorted imagery. It's like a puzzle.
It's uncanny, and I would appreciate a human making that, but knowing it was birthed from a sequence of fallible retrieval systems - pulling off of inputs from biological computers - makes me dubious about the possibility of true artistic creations.
No it is bad - because I know that there is no soul in the brush strokes and composition - it is a hollow imitation of an algorithm collecting interactions between imaginary spaces.
Hot take: Abstract art always swung between art and masturbation and it's kind of funny that a neural net produces more consistently interesting outcomes than many abstract artists.
Yeah, I understand that, but it's a physiological reaction to it - I can start in a section and then be brought out to the whole, and it's terrifying - I can't imagine that pondering those images is healthy.
That's kind of what I like about it. Whatever you see isn't necessarily what's there, it's your brain grasping to interpret the imagines. It's spicy cognition.
But you're trying to imagine an algorithmic mind - an alien understanding that you can't fathom.
EDIT: You or me or any human being can't fathom it because it's a construct representing all of the direct impulses of human thought.
I'd argue that your brain is doing what it always does with visual stimuli - Trying to find a recognizable pattern in a field of arbitary input. But in this case the image your brain is trying to find patterns in has, at most, highly distorted partial pieces of recognizable objects, so your brain has to try to tease out meaning from that distorted imagery. It's like a puzzle.
Exactly.
But the puzzle is one that has no relation to any human experience.
That's what makes it so cool.
Neither does looking at shapes in clouds or reading tea leaves or anything. It's all random and inanimate.
Humans don't write programs that generate clouds.
They grow, harvest, and brew tea so what's your point
it's more real than your brain or mine
Yes, Skynet exists - but it's existence doesn't discount my lived experiences or feelings.
we gotta learn 2 live 2gether bb
It's uncanny, and I would appreciate a human making that, but knowing it was birthed from a sequence of fallible retrieval systems - pulling off of inputs from biological computers - makes me dubious about the possibility of true artistic creations.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator